list_investigations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context with 'Recent' (temporal scope) and 'human review status,' but does not cover auth needs, pagination, limits, or ordering.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and the key returned attributes.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description need not explain return structure or safety. It provides enough context to understand the listing scope, though it could be more complete by clarifying how it relates to get_investigation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the rule states that zero parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter details because there are none to document.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource ('saved evidence records') and the returned fields ('IDs and human review status'), which lets an agent identify this as a listing tool for investigations. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_investigation or investigate_change, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_investigation or other sibling tools. The description only states what the records are, leaving context and alternatives entirely to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.